I happened to be present at the Oslo courthouse on Tuesday, April 17th, watching and listening to 22/7 terrorist Anders Behring Breivik’s 75 minute main prepared defense speech. A speech that the press and media were banned from broadcasting to the general public. These are my thoughts after following the story for almost nine months.

The first thing that has to be said, is that watching Breivik defend himself for 5 hours this Tuesday removed each and every doubt that he is indeed «legally sane», in the sense that he is absolutely fit to be punished by the Norwegian judicial system for his criminal terrorist acts. All «experts» who say otherwise are flat out lying. This is a sane, rational, logically stringent man of great wit, who happens to also have some pretty effed up ideological views that have made him become a mass murderer and a terrorist.

It should also be said right from the start of this article that there is little doubt that he carried out both the bombing in Oslo and the shooting at Utøya. What remains to be seen is whether he had accomplices and what parts of the misdeeds these people took part in. There were also some pretty amazing instances of police SNAFU – 27 according to one commentator, but a lot more if you look more closely. There’s a string of maybe 40 or 50 or 60 grave mistakes on behalf of the police, guards and government, making them unable to stop Breivik before the bombing of Oslo, stop him getting out of Oslo and to nearby Utøya, and to stop the shooting ASAP when Breivik amazingly managed to get himself transported over the sound to Utøya island, using the Labour Party’s own ferry.

So many instances of SNAFU, in fact, that the mathematical probability of them all occuring on the same day or relating to the same person, should tell you all you need to know. And of course, in the weeks and months after the terror, documents, tapes and other evidence started disappearing. As by invisible hands.

OK. So, returning to the terrorist’s defense speech on Tuesday, April 17th. Breivik started telling us how there’d been no real post-WW2 democracy in Norway, because «nationalists» like himself were not allowed free speech and democratic rights. This should tell us that he wanted there to be more democracy, and that Norwegian democracy should also include «ultra nationalists», a fair point that even I could agree on.

However, he messes it up by contradicting himself completely. He loves America, and especially a certain McCarthy, the postwar communist witchhunt general, and he regrets that McCarthyism didn’t go far enough and never succeeded in sending alleged «commie» American citizens to Soviet Russia. So, really, when it comes to a more real and including democracy with less political censorship, our terrorist is only in favour of it when it applies to his chums, and to his «nationalist» parties.

Apart from this ideologically induced blindness or logical breakdown, he argues convincingly that censoring a movement like his own for too long, eventually will make members of that movement resort to other means, even violence.

His speech more generally was aimed at reaching out to a slightly broader audience than his Manifesto and his earlier writing on Norwegian websites, or to «unite national conservatism, which I support, with national socialism and militant christendom», as he put it himself. So the strategy obviously is to appeal to a broader spectrum of racists, and to play down the Zionist issue, which divides Breivik, JDL, EDL, NDL and Knights Templar, on the one side, from other nationalists and nazis, on the other.

Breivik talks rather openly about the strategy of supporting and expanding «street extremism», like the JDL, EDL and NDL (Jewish, English and Norwegian Defense League, respectively), while at the same time building a network of single cell terror operatives, borrowing tactics from – yup – al-Qaida.

The reason for using terror cells consisting of only one man, says Breivik, is to avoid the eyes of anti-terror agencies. This way he only needed to meet with his comrades once or twice during a decade, if we choose to believe him, and I guess blogs, forums, RSS feeds, social media etc took care of the rest.

Breivik also tries to use the term «counter jihad» as much as possible, rather than «zionism», which is what he really supports, and he has succeeded in selling this bogus «counter jihad» term to the Norwegian mainstream media. To quote from the terrorist’s Manifesto:

«So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists.»

So, then, this is what it came to in Norway: Where we could have had the press digging into and revealing the horrific lies of the 9/11 terror attacks ten years after the events, instead we got a snob from the West who bombed his own city using «al-Qaida tactics», and who shot fellow Norwegian kids taking part in a summer youth camp for young politicians and future administrators, because he believed the lies and racist conspiracy theories fed to him for ten years by every newspaper, radio and TV station in this nation and throughout the West. Malicious, racist lies about muslims behind every terrorist act from New York and Bali, through Madrid and London, to Mumbai and Stockholm.

The mythical snake – Midgardsormen – seems to be biting its own tail: False-flag terrorism over a long, sad decade goes unnoticed by the press, the journalists and the editors, and the inevitable end-product of these ten years of lies and cowardice and cover-up is our very own Nordic mass murderer and terrorist; Anders Behring Breivik.

Whether he had handlers or not we don’t know, and the press and the police for some reason don’t seem very eager to find out, he is now the shining example, or knight in shining armour, intended to inspire many, many followers in Scandinavia, Europe and America.

He will even be allowed internet access in jail, and thus to build, expand and strengthen his zionist terrorist networks, both on the streets and in the single-man sleeper cells.

A brand new investigative and analytical documentary from the maker of 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction. It explores the 7/7 cold case via new evidence from the recent inquests and discusses the war on terror in the context of numerous miscarriages of justice and acts of violence committed by the state.

The first section of the film examines the history of the British state’s use of double agents, from the Victorian Anarchists through WW2 to the war in Northern Ireland. It concludes by examining contemporary cases of injustice and violence carried out as part of the war of terror against Muslims.

The second section of the film is a multi-dimensional study of the new evidence made available at the recent inquests. It looks at the evidence of a wider conspiracy and the fundamental flaws in the official narrative and the police investigation. It also discusses why the dialogue about ‘intelligence failures’ itself fails to address the very real possibility of state involvement in the attacks.

The final section of the film returns to the Anarchists and the case of Martial Bourdin, Britain’s first suicide bomber, in 1894. The mythology surrounding Bourdin is used as a foundation for examining the numerous films, tv shows training exercises and real life events that either predicted 7/7 or were influenced by the attacks. The question of conspiracy theories is addressed through an original analysis unique to this film.

7/7 Crime and Prejudice combines a presentation of the cutting edge of July 7th research with a deeply contextual analysis that casts light on largely unexamined aspects of the war on terror.

Under the cover of a 5-day terror drill for the DELTA troops from Monday July 18th to Friday July 22nd 2011, Zionist operatives from Mossad, NATO, Gladio, Stay Behind rig a van with explosives at government HQ in central Oslo, thwart all terror alarm routines and commence the terror with a massacre against anti-Zionist youth at the summer camp on Utøya with 2-5 shooters. DELTA terror police and local police arrive late by car with no boat, no helicopters, no maps, no GPS, asking civilians for the way to Utøya, but not for spare boats on a day of terror and an ongoing massacre.

As patsy or fall guy, long time armchair Zionist madman Anders Behring Breivik is chosen as a volunteer, and a false Facebook profile and Manifest is concocted for him by a team of writers and copy-pasters. Behring Breivik is kept out of sight for the public 24/7 allegedly for fear of him sending coded messages to other cells. Several surviving swimmers from the island are arrested by local police and brought into custody, among them one of the witnesses who testified to the press about more than one gunman on Utøya.

The message thus sent to anyone who’s not stupid and proud of it is along these lines (from Winter Patriot):

You will go along with the program. You will send your troops where we tell you, you will buy foreign products regardless of ethical considerations, you will stop supporting the vermin we are trying to eradicate, and under no circumstances will you threaten anyone.

Otherwise we will bomb your offices and kill your children.

We will do it on a famous anniversary, but it in such a way that no direct evidence leads back to us.

We will do it in a way that shows your police are thoroughly compromised and no use to you at all. We will do it in a way that exacerbates tensions between Christians and Moslems. And we will do it in a way that lends credibility to those who would trash the best features of your open, democratic society.

We will cover our tracks with a lame distraction which will confirm quite clearly — to those with eyes to see — that the entire world’s «news» media are in our pocket. And most of your friends and neighbors — including many who should know better — will play along with it, if they show any interest at all.

Tony Farrell had been employed for twelve years as ‘Principle Intelligence Analyst’ for South Yorkshire Police, 13th largest of the 44 police forces in the UK.His job involved producing a yearly ‘Strategic Threat Assessment Matrix’ to determine how the police force had to prioritise its activities. Assessed ‘threats’ ranged from ASBOs (anti-social behaviour orders) to the terrorist threat allegedly presented by Islamic extremists. Having a statistics degree, it was his job to translate the different ‘strategic threats’ into a ‘matrix’ of relative numerical weighted probabilities.

In 2010, one week before the 5th anniversary of 7/7, Tony (who had never previously doubted government versions of events) stumbled across ‘9/11 Truth’ material on the web. Like so many millions before him, he was shocked to the core by this experience. He quickly realised that there was a great mass of evidence relating to 9/11 kept hidden by the mainstream media. As a Christian, Tony consulted his church minister, who suggested that he consider, whether the same might be true for the London 7/7 bombings?

Something he had not suspected ‘in his wildest dreams’ then started to unfold. After reading much of the available but publicly-unreported witness statements and other evidence relating to 7/7, Tony found that he could only conclude that the official 7/7 narrative was ‘a monstrous lie.’ Instead of the official ‘suicide bombers’ narrative, which he and all of his colleagues had believed without question, he realised that the weight of evidence strongly points far more towards 7/7 being an event stage-managed by British intelligence than anything else.

The unthinkable but inescapable question thus intruded: Does there exist an ‘internal tyranny’ worse than any external foe?

All the assumptions he had held about the ‘strategic threat’ from terrorism were shattered and lay in ruins, and he found himself now doubting the size of any threat allegedly coming from Al-Qaeda and home-grown extremists. Within the police service, he felt horribly alone not knowing who to talk to about this matter – a situation made acute because he would have to present his annual threat assessment to the ‘Intelligence Strategic Management Board’ on July 8th – mere days away.

From his Christian perspective 9/11 and 7/7 could only now be perceived as expressions of a Satanic dimension concerning the ascent of what everybody was calling a ‘New World Order’. He saw these deceitful events as false-flag operations perpetrated in order to justify illegal and wicked wars. This was a deep personal crisis – one that would terminate his career.

On July 6th he ‘stuck his head above the parapet’ by alerting his boss – that he was developing a very different conceptual model of the strategic threat.

The terse document he handed over, suggested that the untruth of the 9/11 story implied ‘a huge potential for a total breakdown in trust between the government and the masses’ and it warned of ‘a tipping-point’ that would surely arrive as it slowly dawned upon citizens that their own government had conspired against them and had lied to them and had murdered innocents in the process.

Likewise he warned that, if indeed 7/7 had been ‘deliberately engineered’ to justify British PM Tony Blair standing shoulder to shoulder with Bush in the illegal war in Iraq, ‘There will be total outrage within the masses and a complete breakdown of trust between the Government and the people of the UK.’

In the presence of two intelligence managers, he alerted the Detective Superintendent, the Director of Intelligence for the South Yorkshire Police, explaining that all of his work used open-source material – he was not violating ‘official secrets’. He alluded to secret societies and a Masonic influence as being very central. The Director of Intelligence distanced the other two managers and they held a one-to-one conversation. The biggest single threat to the UK, Tony Farrell explained to him, was now coming from internal tyranny and in his opinion ‘far exceeded’ any threat from Islamic terrorism. ‘Tony, you and I will never get them to tell the truth’, came the philosophical reply, ‘- we are mere foot-soldiers of the government.’

That indeed was sensible advice, from someone who cared for his welfare – but, something more important was stirring within Tony Farrell: the voice of his conscience, and that would not permit him to go along with the ‘monstrous lie’.

His seniors, seemingly concerned for his well-being expressed a wish for Tony to visit Occupational Health. This irked him, as he felt and indeed was in perfectly good health.

On July 7th 2010, his first line manager, a Detective Chief Inspector spent a good part of the day with him trying to steer him into keeping to the original plan and to avoid rocking the boat. Could they not achieve some sort of compromise – then he could take his three weeks’ leave? To comply with that, he would have had turn a blind eye to his own assessment and deliberately hand over misleading analysis. His ‘strategic’ models were looking promising according to his line manager – yet he could not set aside his new views about ‘internal tyranny.’

As a seemingly lone voice in his police force, Tony Farrell found himself wrestling in the ‘Valley of Decision’ at home that evening, a theme he found expressed in the Book of Job, Chapter 3. He also pondered the 9th Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness.’ He experienced an epic struggle going on that seemed to him to resemble that described in the Book of Ephesians, Chapter 6.

So that evening, 5 years to the day from the London bombings, he reached his own momentous personal decision. He resolved to take a stand knowing it would probably lead to him being sacked.

On July 8th he handed over a very short version of the ‘Strategic Assessment Matrix,’ which averred that the real terrorist ‘threat’ to society was almost entirely of the state-sponsored kind, and it alluded to both 9/11 and 7/7 in this context. Other threats from other ‘domains of criminality’ were, his brief report claimed, ‘insignificant’ by comparison.

This was hardly following the National Intelligence Model guidance, relating to ‘Threat and Risk Assessment models’ that he was supposed to use. ‘Tony we can’t do business like this,’ his manager pleaded.

He was asked to create a personal report: how had he arrived at such an unheard-of view? His privileges were withdrawn and his computer accessed, but as he had done his investigation at home and with open-source material, nothing untoward was found.

And so he was absent from the board meeting that afternoon, even though it was anticipating the yearly presentation from him. Instead he was sent home to compile a report, explaining his stance. He offered to produce a full report with backup evidence, for his shocking new views, but that wasn’t required.

Sacked for his beliefs

His work ‘could be helpful to the police service’ the DI remarked cryptically. Everything had happened so quickly, much too quickly. Tony Farrell was summoned to a hearing chaired by the Director of Finance a member of the Senior Command Team on 2nd September 2010. He was told that he held beliefs that were ‘incompatible’ with his position. There was no allegation of any misconduct. In dismissing him, the Director of Finance said this: “It is a very sad occasion as you have done some excellent work for South Yorkshire Police and I have never been involved in a situation like today. Your beliefs are very sincere and you may be right, but it is I’m afraid incompatible at the moment with where we are.”

He took the matter to the South Yorkshire Police Authority Appeal’s Committee but his case was dismissed. He has since put the case into an Employment Tribunal where final hearings are scheduled to be held in early September 2011 in Sheffield. This will be a public event, and it is likely that South Yorkshire Police will feel embarrassed by the repercussions. This case has potentially far-reaching implications.

Tony Farrell gave an interview with Richard Hall on Sky TV released on July 8, 2011 (used as the main source for this article) and also that same day a 10-minute interview was broadcast on a Bristol local radio; synchronously enough, South Yorkshire’s Chief Constable announced his retirement on that same day 8th July – after nine years’ of service. Was this indicating some stress within the Force? The whole story focuses by odd coincidences upon anniversary-dates of the London bombings, over the last couple of years.

Celebrating their 200th anniversary, the University of Oslo held the 2nd of its 4 Idea Festival Saturdays yesterday, on June 18th. I went to the documentary screening and subsequent debate titled «Orientalism and islamophobia before and after 9/11».

The first hour was a screening of the documentary «Edward Said on Orientalism», which was utterly fantastic and enlightening. The late Said tells us among other things the US version of orientalism is quite different from the French and British orientalisms, as the latter two had a more hands-on experience with «the Orient», having once been colonialist masters in the Middle East and Arabic areas.

The US brand of orientalism, however, is much more based on the Israeli worldview, where all other peoples than the Israelis themselves are deadly enemies waiting for a chance to attack Jews and blow things up.

Increasingly, America has been jazzing up this enemy image of the Arabs, even for decades before 9/11, through movies, computer games and the US version of TV news, in order to still have an enemy after the evil communist Soviet Union collapsed (incidentally because the same America had funded and trained 100,000 Mujahideen fighters – among them one Osama bin Laden – in order to crush the Soviets in Afghanistan).

Having military bases in about 100 nations globally and a military budget at least twice the size of the rest of the world combined, the Americans were in great need to uphold at least one big foreign threat in order for their military spending to seem reasonable to their own people. Their choice – of course, as we all know now – fell on the Arabs and Muslims. Every time Arabs and Muslims are featured in movies, news and computer games, they are angry, masked, shouting crowds burning US and Israeli flags, and so on and so forth. You get the picture.

Now, for the second hour after the break, the Idea Festival had set up a panel to debate the issues, consisting of Elisabeth Eide, Iffit Qureshi and Sindre Bangstad. Master of Ceremony was the indestructable Documentary Cinema boss Ketil Magnussen.

The panel spoke at some length about orientalism and islamophobia, and about 9/11 increasing the level of and cultural acceptance for islamophobia – which used to be called simply racism – but I felt these were pretty obvious and toothless observations with little emphasis on context and causes, so I raised my hand and got the first comment from the audience.

I said Edward Said in the documentary had made it very clear that a huge industry of militarism in America and the West was dependent upon the Arabs being seen as a real and dangerous enemy, and that this image of the Arabs needed to be maintained and increased as time went by. I also said there is reason to believe that both the 9/11 operation and the train bombings of Madrid and London were planned and designed precisely to increase the level of islamophobia and to jazz up the enemy image of the Arabs and Muslims.

For these comments I was myself subjected to a form of orientalism, where Ketil Magnussen dismissed my thoughts as subjects for another time and space, and not for this discussion about 9/11 leading to increased islamophobia. And out of the three comments from the audience, only the other two got answers from the panel.

I find this rather peculiar, and sad, really, as I know for sure that at least half of the panel/moderator team share at least parts of my views on the origins of the 9/11 attacks. But here we are, almost ten years after the 9/11 operation which immediately was blamed on Osama bin Laden, just like the Oklahoma bombing after half an hour was blamed on Arab extremists, as Said mentioned in the film, and still there’s no room for discussing all the evidence pointing in a totally different direction as to the source of the attacks.

We’ve established a clear motive, what with the Israelis wanting to paint all Arabs and Muslims as Evil Terrorists, and the Americans needing to jazz up this threat as the successor of the Terrible Communist Threat to keep and increase their vast military budgets, and we have piles and piles of evidence of complicity, explosives and careful cover-up, and yet we are not allowed to discuss these things, not even at an Idea Festival at a University in a presumably free country.

Utterly sad, for the only possible way to decrease the level of hatred and islamophobia goes through exposing the real 9/11 terrorists and real bombers of the Madrid commuter trains and the London Underground.

People will never forgive these vast crimes just for the sake of multiculturalism, that should now be clear to both academics and the rest of us. That’s why these crimes need to be solved, not covered up even more. And it is in fact very easy to prove that the crimes have been covered up, plus we know who’s been covering them up.

If one assumes the London 7/7 bombings were an Anglo-American-Israeli operation that succeeded, then it is a most successfull and well-planned strategic mass slaughter aimed exactly at increasing hatred and islamophobia to a whole new level. Think about it: 4 ordinary everyday «homegrown» British Muslims teaching kids to play football and expecting babies; even these people are capable of blowing themselves up on the tube right next to you, just because they’re Evil Arabs and Dangerous Muslims.

No other Western military intelligence operation could’ve achieved the goals better than that.

I will end this sad rant with an appeal to Norwegian and Nordic academics and intellectuals to be brave and fearless, and speak their minds freely, as we approach the Tenth Remembrance Day of the operation that killed close to 3000 American civilians, quoting two lines from a Swedish song by Imperiet:

What we’ve all seen through all these years – through 3440 long days or exactly 113 months – has really just been their grossly distorted projection of this evil muslim monster that supposedly was responsible for horrific acts of violence like the September 2001 WTC attack and the July 2005 London Underground attack. But now we see the true arabs and the true muslims, fighting peacefully side-by-side with their christian and koptic brethren and sisters to relieve themselves of the yoke of an anti-democratic and pro-zionist dictator in the shape of so-called president Hosni Mubarak.

Today your struggle succeeded! And the careful but dangerous process begins to form a new future for Egypt, the Greater Middle East and, frankly, the entire world. We cried for you, we cried with you, and some day we hope we will laugh with you! And join you in the struggle for real democracy even in our neck of the woods. Peace! Love! Revolution! Democracy!

You taught the world how to write on the wall, now you must teach us all how to read the writing.

DEMOS v. The Truth Movement: There’s been quite a few newsletters and updates from Ian Fantom of Berkshire 9/11 Truth and «Keep Talking» fame lately, so let me just start off by alerting everyone in or near London that there is a very special dialogue meeting tomorrow at 7.30 pm at Goldsmiths, University of London, Room 308 in the Richard Hoggart Building (telephone: + 44 (0)20 7919 7171). The Richard Hoggart Building is on the West of the campus, on Lewisham Way (A20). Curious people in Norway or elsewhere in cyberspace can follow the event live at Ustream TV from about 20.30 CET on Monday, October 25th, 2010.

Following will be my edited excerpts from Ian’s newsletters in October and September:

In addition to yesterday’s newsletter, I can now provide you with the web address for live streaming of the event ‘DEMOS v. The Truth Movement’. It is:

For the first time ever in the history of the 9/11 truth movement, as far as I am aware, truth seekers will have an opportunity to be directly confronted by ‘the other side’. The think-tank DEMOS has accepted an invitation to talk about their recommendations to Government on ‘open infiltration’ in what they call ‘conspiracy theory’ groups. That meeting will take place this coming Monday, under the heading ‘DEMOS v. The Truth Movement’.

What’s more, if everything goes to plan, the event will be broadcast live over the Internet. The meeting will be held at Goldsmiths College in London on Monday 25th October (19:00 for 19:30). The speakers will be the two authors of the DEMOS report ‘the power of unreason: conspiracy theories, extremism and counter-terrorism’, which I wrote about in my September newsletter. Jamie Bartlett and Carl Miller have agreed to come along and explain the thinking behind their work, and to answer questions from the audience.

In my September newsletter I described the recommendations, and gave some background on DEMOS, explaining its importance in Government thinking since 1997. If you don’t have that newsletter, and would like a copy, just email. I can also supply you with my Powerpoint presentation which I used at last month’s meeting of ‘9/11 Keep Talking’, in which I analysed the contents of the report.

In summary, I wrote in the newsletter: “The report was headed, ‘the power of unreason: conspiracy theories, extremism and counter-terrorism’ (www.demos.co.uk/files/Conspiracy_theories_paper.pdf), and it claims to examine the role of conspiracy theories in extremist groups, arguing that conspiracy theories are linked to violence. It singles out the 9/11 Truth movement as being “most notorious and influential”, in that it questions the official accounts of 9/11. It states that the obvious response by Government of producing information often fails because any refutation risks being taken as evidence of a cover up. The authors propose introducing ‘alternative information’ to civilian groups which believe in conspiracy theories. This may be introduced directly by agents of the Government, ‘or their allies’, in what they term ‘open infiltration’, or it may be introduced by civilian groups, which would be seen to be independent of Government.”

Shortly after the report was published, Jamie Bartlett opened up a blog on the DEMOS website headed ‘The bloggers strike back’ (www.demos.co.uk/blog/engaging-), giving a description of the report, and accepting comments. Many of these comments concerned the issue of 9/11, which had been included in the report. In response to one contributer, he stated: “Paolo you are absolutely right, the report was not about the 9/11 truth movement, but about conspiracy theories in extremist groups. I have, however, consequently been sucked into a debate about 9/11, which I am more than happy to take on”. He added: “Finally, I will be going on to a radio show soon with someone who I think is quite an influential person in the 9/11 truth movement. He posted a video about our report here. To his credit he’s willing to have me on his radio show. So I’ll post details when I get them.

I put a couple of questions up myself, and these were replied to privately. I then asked Carl whether they would be willing to come and talk to us and answer questions on their report. Carl replied that he would, but that they would both be abroad for the next meeting. Some time later I wrote on Jamie’s blog page: “You and Carl will be most welcome to come to our 9/11 Keep Talking group in London to explain your report and to answer questions on it. This would provide an opportunity for both of you to demonstrate just how ‘open infiltration’ would work, and how you would propose to introduce ‘alternative information’ in connection with the 9/11 issue. It would also allow you to explain to us the other forms of infiltration which you propose, and why they are necessary, compared with the current methods already employed by the security services. Carl has already accepted in principle, and so if you could email me with some dates, I’ll be able to set something up.” Jamie responded privately, and that led to Monday’s meeting.

Initially, we had intended this as a normal monthly meeting of the London group, which we had been holding in a pub in St Pancras Station, in a meeting room provided free of charge. But by the last meeting they were asking us to commit to £10 per head in drinks and food. Attendance went down. Then David Rose stepped in. He is a PhD student of Sociology at Goldsmith’s College, a part of the University of London, working on ‘Visual Sociology and Conspiracy Theories’ (www.gold.ac.uk/sociology/staff/nash/). He managed to book a room at the university as part of his doctoral work. There is no entrance fee, but it is particularly important that the meeting be conducted in an orderly and academic way.

If you can’t get to the event yourself, you may like to watch it live on the Internet. We’re still working on that, but to keep you informed, David will put up the latest information in the calendar on the university’s website (www.gold.ac.uk/calendar/?action=month – look up for the 25th). The streamed event will probably be at http://www.ustream.tv/ . You’ll need to know which channel.
For those who can reach London, the meeting will be in Room 308 in the Richard Hoggart Building. The Main Goldsmiths Reception will be informed about the event on the night and have directions to RHB 308. David will also put up signs. The address is: Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, London, SE14 6NW, UK (telephone: + 44 (0)20 7919 7171). The Richard Hoggart Building is on the West of the campus, on Lewisham Way (A20), midway between the two stations (New Cross and New Cross Gate). There is detalied information here about how to travel to Goldsmiths on their website (www.gold.ac.uk/find-us/), with a campus map (www.gold.ac.uk/media/campus-map-instructions.pdf) which includes a listing of travel options. If anyone is thinking of traveling into London for the event then the White Hart Hotel in New Cross has single rooms for £25 per night.

Both the DEMOS press release and the Guardian blog give prominance to 9/11, thus emphasising that the 9/11 truth movement was indeed of primary relevance to the report. Please feel free to pass this newsletter on to friends and to get the information out there, and above all, keep talking.

**

Keep Talking meeting Monday October 25

We have a rather special meeting of the Keep Talking group this time.

For the first time ever, as far as I am aware, a 9/11 group has had the opportunity to challenge the authorities directly on their side of the story, in order to call them to account.

At the September meeting I gave a presentation on the DEMOS report ‘the power of unreason: conspiracy theories, extremism and counter-terrorism’, and I wrote about that in some detail in my September newsletter. An excerpt from that report is to be found at the end of this message.

Both authors of that report have now agreed to come along to the 9/11 Keep Talking group to explain to us their recommendations to Government, and to answer our questions on it. One of the authors, Jamie Bartlett, has accepted a specific invitation for the 25 of October, and he is just checking with the other author Carl Miller to see if he can make it for the same evening.

Bearing in mind that DEMOS is widely believed to have had more influence over Government strategy during the Blair years than the Cabinet itself had, and that it now has close ties with the coalition cabinet, this is an important occasion.

The propaganda war in the cover-up of 9/11 lies is hotting up. In my last two newsletters I wrote about the misuse of the term ‘conspiracy theory’ in discrediting those who just wanted to know the truth. In July I wrote about the misuse of the term by the coroner in the inquest of those who died in the London bombings of July 7, 2005, and in August I wrote about the BBC’s reaction to a call for a proper inquest into the death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly, when they invited onto Newsnight “anticonspiracy theory nutters such as journalist David Aaronovitch”, who would talk of “hundreds of conspiracy theories” and skillfully avoid mentioning that two of the people who had called for an inquiry are now members of the Cabinet. What I was not aware of was that whilst I was writing my August newsletter, some of David Aaronovitch’s friends in the think-tank DEMOS were publishing a report exactly along those lines, but focusing on the issue of 9/11.

The report was headed, ‘the power of unreason: conspiracy theories, extremism and counter-terrorism’ (www.demos.co.uk/files/Conspiracy_theories_paper.pdf), and it claims to examine the role of conspiracy theories in extremist groups, arguing that conspiracy theories are linked to violence. It singles out the 9/11 Truth movement as being “most notorious and influential”, in that it questions the official accounts of 9/11. It states that the obvious response by Government of producing information often fails because any refutation risks being taken as evidence of a cover up. The authors propose introducing “alternative information” to civilian groups which believe in conspiracy theories. This may be introduced directly by agents of the Government, “or their allies”, in what they term ‘open infiltration’, or it may be introduced by civilian groups, which would be seen to be independent of Government.

In fact, the report quotes David Aaronovitch’s definition of ‘conspiracy theories’, from his book ‘Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History’: “What distinguishes conspiracy theories from genuine efforts to uncover actual conspiracies is that a conspiracy theory is not the most plausible account of events based on the available evidence. David Aaronovitch points out they attribute secret action that ‘might far more reasonably be explained as the less covert and less complicated action of another’”. There is, however, no analysis of whether the official story that the 9/11 attacks were directed by a man suffering from kidney failure in the remote Black Mountains of Afghanistan would be more plausible than the idea that the US administration had rogue elements within it, who carried out the attacks from within. The two theories are not even incompatible. If the authorities had really believed that the attacks had been orchestrated by Osama bin Laden, then you would have thought that they themselves would have been investigating whether Al Qaeda had infiltrated the CIA. However, the DEMOS report singles out the 9/11 movement as being the “most notorious and influential”, in that it merely questions the official accounts of 9/11. That does not even fall within their friend’s definition, which they themselves had quoted.

The report claims to have “have conducted new analysis of the literature, ideology and propaganda of over fifty extremist groups from across the spectrum: religious, far-right and left, eco, anarchic, and cult-based”. However, exactly which groups had been analysed, how they were selected, and what analysis was carried out, is not made clear. A list of 16 extremist groups “with no significant conspiracy theories” is first presented, with no explanation of their relevance. Then a tabulated list of 30 items, representing 35 groups, is presented, together with a description of the conspiracy theories which they are said to hold. The relevance of this list is not explained, and, indeed, only six of them are UK groups: one is proscribed, one has long been defunct, one is an obscure heathenist anti-multicultural group and the others are obscure far-right political groups. In the body of the report, out of the 34 groups mentioned, 11 do not appear in the tabulated list. These include the Khmer Rouge, the Baader-Meinhof Gang and the ‘9/11 truth movement’. By producing such lists, they are painting a picture of extremism and violence, into which they slot the 9/11 Truth movement, neither on the basis of extremism nor on the basis of conspiracy theory, but on the basis of questioning the state.

The report states that conspiracy theories have become a mainstream cultural phenomenon, and that very large numbers of people believe conspiracy theories: a third of all Americans consider it “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that government officials either allowed, or actually carried out the attacks on 9/11; 80% of Muslims believe American and/or Israeli governments carried out the attacks; nearly a quarter of British Muslims in 2006 did not believe the four men identified as the perpetrators of the 7/7 attacks were responsible, and around half believed that 9/11 was a conspiracy between the CIA and Israel. These are very powerful statistics, especially when they are quoted by those who appear to have an interest in eradicating what they call ‘conspiracy theories’.

The report does admit that some conspiracy theories are true, but gives only three, and these are over forty years old. Out of all the conspiracy theories mentioned, one conspiracy theory which was conspicuously absent from the report was making headlines in the mainstream media as the report was being prepared: the strange death of Dr David Kelly. It would be interesting to know why.

The report states that a response is required, and makes several recommendations to Government. The first two concern the education of young people, in encouraging critical thinking, deconstructing propaganda, and “reviewing how far the education system equips young people to navigate false information and counter knowledge”. These would imply standards that the report itself does not adhere to.

There are several proposals concerning making Government and security information more open or transparent, but they state: “It is very difficult for government to effectively fight conspiracy theories that have already gained a foothold in extremist groups. As noted, government lacks the credibility to do so, and attempts to do so may inadvertently give such theories more credibility”. In other words, Government is no longer believed. In order to overcome this problem, the report recommends that “Civil Society must play a more proactive role in confronting the lies and myths of conspiracy theories when they find them”. This can only mean vigilante groups, but the mechanism by which such independent vigilante groups may spring up following a recommendation to Government that that should happen is not made clear. Such a mechanism would be far from transparent. One should look to Government, the security services, or the financial backers for an explanation.

The report’s final recommendation states: “Introduce some limited, open infiltration of Internet and physical sites by government to introduce alternative information”. According to that recommendation, Government agents or their allies would “openly infiltrate the Internet sites or spaces to plant doubts about conspiracy theories, introducing alternative information”. I sought clarification from the authors, who confirmed that the agents would indeed declare their roles as Government agents. I wonder what the agents of the Government’s allies would declare.

The report is important because of influence which DEMOS is believed to have had over Government policy since 1997 under Tony Blair’s New Labour, and may still have with the coalition government. The New Labour period saw a massive erosion of civil liberties, and in that period the UK became known as the surveillance capital of the world.

As former cabinet minister Clare Short put it in her 2004 book ‘An Honorable Deception? New Labour, Iraq, and the Misuse of Power’, “it was after the 1992 defeat that New Labour was created by a very small group of people who went on to take over the reigns of power and to restrict and diminish democracy in the party” (page 2). Some in the New Labour group had been members of the Communist Party or Marxist groups. A chronology gives the context: 1989 saw the fall of the Berlin Wall, followed in 1991 by the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. Around this time, the Communist Party of Great Britain disintegrated in an orgy of quarreling instigated by MI5, as was later to be revealed by MI5 whistleblowers Annie Machon and David Shayler. As regards the Labour Party, Clare Short wrote, “Urgent reform was needed, most importantly to end the infiltration of Trotskyist groups into the party” (page 20). In 1994 Labour leader John Smith died, Tony Blair took over, and in 1997 became Prime Minister. Clare Short made it clear throughout in her book, that this country had not had Cabinet government since 1997.

DEMOS was founded in 1993, and initially had close links with the emerging New Labour group. A recent article on the ‘Social Equality Party’ website traces many of the New Labour people to their Communist or Marxist pasts, and shows the relationship with DEMOS, and how the same people are now becoming advisors to the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition. The article concludes: “Demos and its top personnel move seamlessly on to act as political advisers to the Tories on how best to impose the savage austerity measures demanded by big business” (www.socialequality.org.uk/~sepuk/content/alan-milburn-new-labour-and-british-coalition-government).

DEMOS today claims to be independent (www.demos.co.uk), and has involvement from all three main political parties. Its Advisory Board consists of academics, journalists and politicians, four of whom are currently Cabinet members: George Osborne, David Willetts, Danny Alexander and Vince Cable. Its financial backers, according the annual reports up to 2008, include various Government departments and the Cabinet itself. Such a body is now making proposals to Government which, whilst appearing to be advocating more openness and transparency, would lead to just the opposite. The result would amount to a Ministry of Truth, truth vigilantes and a thought police.

At the Keep Talking group in London I gave a talk on this report, and as I was preparing it, someone referred me to a new book by David Ray Griffin, called ‘Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory’ (www.amazon.co.uk/Cognitive-Infiltration-Appointees-Undermine-Conspiracy/dp/1566568218/ref=sr_1_1). It seems that something similar has been happening in the US, but there seems to have been less of a pretence of ‘openness’. A book review on the UK Amazon site by Tango Karlos begins: “Obama’s ‘Information Czar’ appointee, a Harvard law professor and a personal friend, Cass Sunstein, is administrator of the White House Office of Information. In 2009 Sunstein published «Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures,» in which he suggested propaganda against the people and, eventually, elimination! The article led to an outcry by civil libertarians of all political stripes, who especially singled out for protest Sunstein’s call to make talking about conspiracy theories illegal; for covert ‘cognitive infiltration’ by government agents; and even taxing or fining publishers for writing or printing material deemed to be conspiracy theory material! Sunstein says that ‘9/11 conspiracy theories’ are his main focus. Sunstein has called for what is a ‘Counter Intelligence Program’ directed specifically against the 9/11 truth movement!”

The review then goes into some detail on how David Ray Griffin “penetrates the obfuscation and phony scholarship employed by Sunstein to create the illusion of a rational critique of the 9/11 truth movement’s alternative account of the events of September 11, 2001 … But in so doing Sunstein has provided Griffin the means to demonstrate yet again that defenders of the official account of 9/11 are forced to resort to disinformation, suppression of evidence, lies, illogic, threats and intimidation, always with the same result: failure”.

A historical account relating to the Sunstein paper was given by Danikel Tencer in January on the Raw Story site under the title ”Obama staffer wants ‘cognitive infiltration’ of 9/11 conspiracy groups” (rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups/). I shall be interested to read Sunstein’s paper, and David Ray Griffin’s book, to see how close these are to the DEMOS report and my analysis, which I gave at the Keep Talking group. I also wrote a couple of other articles on the DEMOS report, which may or may not appear, but anyone wishing to have a copy of my Powerpoint presentation need only ask.

After I had given the talk, I was told that Iranian Television had been trying to contact me to ask for permission to film the event. Unfortunately, I didn’t have my mobile with me.

Then, on September 23 I started finding early reports of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at the United Nations. Early press reports were saying that he had accused the United States of carrying out the 9/11 attacks. Some reports were denigrating him as a ‘holocaust denier’ in an attempt to discredit his statements on 9/11. There were reports of the US, British and other delegations walking out. Eventually I found a video of the complete speech, with English translation (www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v4I8oyNEtI), when I could hear just what he had said. Later I acquired the full text (gadebate.un.org/Portals/1/statements/634208557381562500IR_en.pdf).

In his speech, President Ahmadinejad mentioned the events of 11 September 2001, saying that that had affected the whole world for almost a decade. “All of a sudden”, he said, “the news of the attack on the twin towers was broadcast using numerous footages of the incident. Almost all governments and known figures strongly condemned this incident. But then a propaganda machine came into full force; it was implied that the whole world was exposed to a huge danger, namely terrorism, and that the only way to save the world would be to deploy forces into Afghanistan. Eventually Afghanistan, and shortly thereafter Iraq were occupied.”

“Please take note:”, he continued, “It was said that some three thousand people were killed on the 11th September for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding.”

He continued: “In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints. 1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack. This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen. 2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view”. It was at this point that the US delegation walked out, followed by others. President Ahmadinejad continued:” 3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents. The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found.

“There remain, however, a few questions to be answered: 1- Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them? 2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group? 3- Was it not possible to act the way Iran countered the Riggi terrorist group who killed and wounded 400 innocent people in Iran. In the Iranian operation no innocent person was hurt.

“It is proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group for the event of the 11 September so that in the future expressing views about it is not forbidden.

“I wish to announce here that next year the Islamic Republic of Iran will host a conference to study terrorism and the means to confront it. I invite officials, scholars, thinkers, researchers and research institutes of all countries to attend this conference.”

I have no knowledge of what happened in the case of Riggi incident, but otherwise that text looks very reasonable. When he gave three widely believed theories of what happened, that is exactly what I did with regards the death of Dr Kelly in my August newsletter. When he talked about widespread disbelief in the official story, that is exactly what DEMOS did in their report. When he called for a fact-finding mission, that is exactly what thousands of Newyorkers had been doing for several years, though they were asking for their own Government to investigate, rather than the United Nations. When he stated that he would set up a conference next year to consider the issue, that is what many truth-seekers have been doing over the years, though on a smaller scale.

The diplomats who walked out on President Ahmadinejad during his speech were walking out not only on the Iranian president, but also on many, many members of the public who do not believe the official story and want some sort of investigation.

The signs are that the propaganda war will continue to hot up. In an earlier newsletter I mentioned that truth-seekers might become labeled as ‘9/11 deniers’. That’s now happening. I think that attempts to discredit the movement by associating it with ‘holocaust denial’ have now run their course; the danger now is that that will merely give credence to holocaust denial. Discrediting by making allegations of ‘paranoia’ has also run its course; we now all know what ‘paranoid’ means. The current challenge is in dealing with allegations of ‘conspiracy theory’, which, I think, will eventually run their course if we keep on tackling it. We need just to keep talking, and at every opportunity dealing with what I suppose we can legitimately call ‘conspiracy deniers’.